Thanks for the offer of your unknown url, but I did my own research.
Again, not taking the side of the unprincipled slimeball Mitt Romney.
Evidently the unfortunately Baker-Fancher party from Arkansas, passed through Utah during a period of territory hostilities with the Federal authorities.
No less than Brigham Young, had allegedly forbidden travel through Utah during the hostilities without permission.
Evidently the unfortunate Baker-Fancher party was not aware of this, and were it may be, perceived as enemy agents.
This poster, 150 years later, with the benefit of perspective, would attribute this to “friendly fire”.
A mistake.
Obama’s religion by contrast, planned the attack on the WTC deliberately.
Are you trying to make excuses for that?
(Not very thorough, were you?)
No less than Brigham Young, had allegedly forbidden travel through Utah during the hostilities without permission. Evidently the unfortunate Baker-Fancher party was not aware of this, and were it may be, perceived as enemy agents.
The party arrived in Salt Lake City without incident. No hostilities. No threats (either way). As territorial governor, Brigham Young could have had them do a u-turn...certainly...or quicker yet -- a very (relatively) quick way out of Utah Territory heading north to the Oregon Territory (now southern Idaho) -- the Oregon Trail.
No such thing happened. No confrontations. Nothing. The Fancher party headed straight into the very HQ of Brigham Young...and NOTHING happened.
From there, the Fanchers elected to take the Old Spanish Trail heading Southwest. At the time the attack occurred -- Southwest of Cedar City -- the Fancher party wasn't all that far North from the old Mexican border (now AZ)...[Here's an 1857 map: 1857 U.S. Map]
This poster, 150 years later, with the benefit of perspective, would attribute this to “friendly fire”. A mistake.
Sorry, but even in your "hostile" scenario, if you owned a LOT of ranch acreage...and you KNEW somebody had just mosied thru most of it in a "no harm, no foul" way...and they were continuing to exit that property & were close to the exit -- with no theft in hand of anything...for you to chase them down and kill them at will would be no defense of the law.
Otherwise, the hanging of John D. Lee -- the only man held accountable for the slaughter -- would have been unjust. Are you going to go out on a limb and claimed that John D. Lee was only guilty of engaging in "friendly fire" upon children and their moms & dads?
Even Brigham Young agreed to Lee getting hung (despite treating him like an adopted son). Why? So Lee could become a scapegoat and take "justice served."
(I wouldn't switch to anything history-related if you ever elect to switch careers)
